Just now, Rocmistro said:

I guess I meant more to assert it as a global fix.

I think it's fine to say "I'm the TO for this event, and as such, given the card's ambiguity, we will be playing Heavy Fire Zone as a long-range red-die interpretation", without necessarily asserting that as the objectively settled way that the card will be FAQ'd by FFG.

And you don’t consider it worthwhile to continue to assert a desire to attain FFFOPs ideal of a CONSISTENT competitive environment?

Of course I do.

I also think some introspection and doubt should be maintained about ambiguous cards. (And this is, currently, at best, an ambiguous card) If for nothing else than for the relationship-building / social points gleaned by humility.

Dras, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not married to any particular ruling of this card; I'm just deciphering it as best I can.

Perhaps I am overreaching.

i don’t particularly care about that, either.

They day people stop asking me for my opinion on rules, is the day I’ll assume my opinion doesn’t mean something anymore 🙂

Just now, Rocmistro said:

Dras, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not married to any particular ruling of this card; I'm just deciphering it as best I can.

This is what’s getting me more than anything.

You have a dog in the fight - there’s no point to fight otherwise other than for fightings sake. Abd that’s a dog 🙂

Same as “just being devils advocate”. Don’t do that . Don’t be that. We’re not discussing sainthood here.

😁

People Dont have to care about rules, they really don’t. But it’s hard to imagine someone both saying “I don’t care about the way the rules are” and “your interpretation of the rules is wrong” in the same context.

I don’t think the card is a mistake as such: I think it was written with a certain interpretation of base rules in mind. This is not a case of the wring wordings being used. The wordings chosen are the intended wordings.

Its a matter of the interpretation of base rules being different between Absolute Total RAW, and the people who not only write, but tested, the card.

And I do think of need be it needs to be called out on a global level - abd in the meantime, I’d much prefer it if something was USED in the meantime.

What that means is I don't have a particular stake in the outcome being interpreted any particular way; I don't have $100 riding on a bet, I don't have an uber list that absolutely depends on Heavy Fire Zone working one way or the other. It means I'm not emotionally attached to the outcome one way or the other, and my ego/identify is not hanging in the balance.

Bullet Points Aren't Steps.

HFZ boosts your range because you don't check to see if range has no dice until you go to gather them.

You gather them in step 2.

You switch from blues to reds just before step 2.

44 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

Bullet Points Aren't Steps.

HFZ boosts your range because you don't check to see if range has no dice until you go to gather them.

You gather them in step 2.

You switch from blues to reds just before step 2.

I don't see how it matters that bullet points are or aren't steps.

Would you at least agree that, regardless of whether or not they are steps , that checking for range occurs before HFZ allows you to swap blues for reds? And the reason it occurs before that is because that the swapping of blues for reds is literally the last thing that happens prior to gathering attack dice? (given FFG's wording of "before")

You wouldn't argue that checking range (despite being a "bullet point" under Step 1. Declare Target) occurs in, for example, Step 5.) Resolve Damage ?

17 hours ago, Grumbleduke said:

I'm pretty sure 1 is the intent of the card. But as written, that involves breaking causality (something has to have effect before it is caused). 2 is more consistent - you check maximum attack range, which means checking armament, armament is defined (outside the Attack Steps) as being the anti-squadron armament if you are attacking a squadron. And that doesn't get changed (blue to red) until after you do the range check.

I don't think that's the case, there's 3 ships already that shoot red die AA, which the card would work nicely with. It also boosts any blue range ships by giving them a beefier armament, even Draven and Kallus can be added to roll an extra blue.

I guess it's about spiking, your 1 blue, 1 black or 2 blues / 2 black is only doing 2 damage to squads, now it can spike to 4, with an acc from draven or kallus if you're lucky. Even 3dmg and an acc is enough to start putting pain on, especially if backed up by the new turbolaser towers..

7 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Still quite literally a downgrade,

If nothing else, even if you consider the parity of danage average, and the extra misses worth the 1/8 double: it’s a straight downgrade in Accuracy.

Yeah, you're paying for those 1 or 2 spikes.. and then to reroll you're paying more points, and on top you're not shooting ships. It'll be fun when it works, but better with the blues imo

40 minutes ago, Rocmistro said:

You're being aggressive. I'm out.

I do sincerely apologise.

I do have a dog in the game, and I am frustrated, and frustrated at being frustrated.

Most of all, I wish that things were straightforward enough that people like me were irrelevant.

Just to be clear; if TOs want to rule that HFZ extends range I'm mostly fine with that. I don't think it is a TOs job to change the rules to make them more sensible, but in this case it is at least an understandable interpretation of the rules.

However, as noted above, the card is at best ambiguous (if not clear the other way). So whatever FFG's intention was with this rule, we should be making a fuss about it to get clarification either way (if their intention was for it to extend range, they should errata it to make that clear, if not, a FAQ to confirm).

Again, I think their intention was to extend range, but not hugely convinced. Compare with Disposable Capacitors; it is 1 point more, works all the time not just one round, but only works on anti-squadron, changes the dice colour (red dice can do more damage - but are less reliable), and takes up a valuable turbolaser slot. So maybe it is costed for extending range.

There are only 2 ships in 400-point games that have red+blue anti-squadron, so getting that second red dice at long range isn't going to come up often. The card comes with the Onager which I don't think you'd ever want to put it on in either case, and the Starhawk, which is one of those ships (but presumably wants an anti-ship turbolaser upgrade). But we're given 2 copies, so they want us to use this with other ships. So... yeah, I'm not sure it is worth delving into the intention of FFG too much.

The real idiocy here is that FFG doesn’t have a “preliminary rules guru” whose job it is to answer a bloody question with at least a “for now” ruling, even one subject to change in an official FAQ. Their response time for communication with their players is absolutely inexcusable, and I literally cannot understand how a major game company can function like this.

Rapid Launch Bays was a months-long project. Questions like Escort v. IG-88B and HFZ really just need one rules guy to pop up and say, “We’re looking into it. For now, the way the playtesters were approaching this card was X. Play it like that, we’ll let you know if we’re gonna change it in the FAQ.”

Also, it seems like there is room for interpretation on RAW for HFZ, but it seems absolutely plain as day that the RAI allow Reds at long range even if no Reds were present in the initial anti-squadron armament. Just one man’s opinion, but it’s a pretty marginal card even with the strongest interpretation. The weaker interpretation would have been totally useless.

14 hours ago, Rocmistro said:

Does HFZ happen there though?

Disclaimer: Im not a rules guru, im sure ill be proven wrong here and thats ok, just be nice about it

so just reading the card, the timing is before you gather dice, which is step 2 as seen in the handy image above(thanks roc)

before means immediately before right? So immediately before step 2: roll Attack dice - gather dice... is step 1. Not step 1.5, step 1/2, step 1a, etc.

The timing is before you gather dice, not before you gather dice, after declaring a target.

And if multiple effects share a timing you choose what happens first right? So it would be something like

Declare target (HFZ changes the dice colour) measure, LoS, arc, range (which is dependent on the die and hey look, your blue dice are now red) Which would make it legal to shoot at long range.

Im i missing something completely here?

18 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:

so just reading the card, the timing is before you gather dice, which is step 2 as seen in the handy image above(thanks roc)

before means immediately before right? So immediately before step 2: roll Attack dice - gather dice... is step 1. Not step 1.5, step 1/2, step 1a, etc.

The timing is before you gather dice, not before you gather dice, after declaring a target..

Im i missing something completely here?

Step 1.75 would be a pretty good way to describe it. The way timing works in this game: “Before step A” > “During step A” > “After step A” > “Before step B,” and so on. Only effects that share the exact same timing window can resolve in any order.

So this goes before step B and can’t go before step A. Cards that trigger “after step A” also trigger first.

Jabbawookie is correct as I understand it.

"Before" means "Everything else in the world that could possibly happen occurs first and then the <before> trigger happens, and then the thing that happens immediately after the <before trigger>. In abstract game terms, there is literally nothing else that can get squeezed in prior to the "before": not breathing, not blinking, not picking up or checking a command dial, not subatomic particles spinning at light speed, nothing, there is no time alotted to do anything else.

26 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Step 1.75 would be a pretty good way to describe it. The way timing works in this game: “Before step A” > “During step A” > “After step A” > “Before step B,” and so on. Only effects that share the exact same timing window can resolve in any order.

So this goes before step B and can’t go before step A. Cards that trigger “after step A” also trigger first.

19 minutes ago, Rocmistro said:

Jabbawookie is correct as I understand it.

"Before" means "Everything else in the world that could possibly happen occurs first and then the <before> trigger happens, and then the thing that happens immediately after the <before trigger>. In abstract game terms, there is literally nothing else that can get squeezed in prior to the "before": not breathing, not blinking, not picking up or checking a command dial, not subatomic particles spinning at light speed, nothing, there is no time alotted to do anything else.

Huh, ok. Ive always taken before as has to happen the step before, not as a intermediary event.

Thanks

9 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

The real idiocy here is that FFG doesn’t have a “preliminary rules guru” whose job it is to answer a bloody question with at least a “for now” ruling, even one subject to change in an official FAQ.

The closest we have ever had is... me.

I used to Spend a lot of time communicating directly with FFG both through direct email and via the rules feedback links.

FFG cannot do it in house due to scheduling/work time issues. Their workers are busy enough developing.

And there’s reasons why I don’t do as much as I once did.

5 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

FFG cannot do it in house due to scheduling/work time issues. Their workers are busy enough developing.

Forgive me for the rant I’m about to embark upon. It’s aimed at some inept corporate exec at FFG, not anyone here.

That’s horse ****.

Major game companies have paid people, sometimes teams of them, whose job it is to ensure that their games function as designed. It’s not difficult to answer these questions; they merely need an official liaison (paid or unpaid) to ask the guy who wrote the card “Heavy Fire Zone” what the actual intent was for it, then that liaison needs to come post here with an answer. It’s not like we’re playing M:TG here, with a half-dozen new mechanics and hundreds of completely new cards every few months, on a locked schedule... the release schedule for Armada is... relaxed (and glacial) by comparison, and the number of new cards and interactions, tiny. What do we get? Ten? Twenty new cards each year? Of which 85% are slam-dunk straightforward. The 2-3 that aren’t, and need clarification, should not be hard to get answers on.

Even if they’re unwilling or unable to pay someone even a part-time wage to do the legwork of getting these answers, I’m certain they would have a small army of volunteers eager to do the job for free, as you have in the past, Dras. The fact that they seem to be too busy to communicate with the players on these issues means that FFG fundamentally doesn’t understand how to run a business. The evidence is also in the endless, inexcusable product delays with no explanation. The utter lack of “new product” articles and other marketing materials. It’s just disheartening, because the game itself is so good! They just completely fail to realize that you absolutely MUST support your product and actively communicate with the community that buys it.

Who is making the top-level decisions to not have a fully-staffed marketing team that writes articles and talks actively with the community? A full rules team?

And why does nobody else seem to think it’s weird that FFG hasn’t fixed these issues after all these years?

All of the silly “Is Armada dead?” and “Is FFG backing off of Armada?” posts that occasionally pop up actually DO have a deleterious effect on enthusiasm for a game, and on the player base. And those posts are a direct result of months-long product delays, unanswered rules questions, and lack of regular articles. Whoever is preventing those issues from being solved is costing FFG money, in a very real sense, and needs to get it together.

I think my biggest issue is the wording vs intent of HFZ seems to contradict at least 5 references across 3 publications and could impact how existing or future cards are interpreted. Or lead to "yes the card says this but we play it this way". Or teaching a new player "yes the rules say this but it is actually not this" with no reasoning other than "because it is."

But the intent of HFZ is totally obvious. Nobody would ever pay 4 points for that card if it didn’t give you extra range. ****, most people wouldn’t even use it for zero points (why waste the Turbolaser slot on a straight up downgrade?).

Besides which, I think the card actually works. It should definitely have been worded differently (they could have just said, one way or another, “this card allows you to fire at long range”), but it works as-is.

52 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

But the intent of HFZ is totally obvious. Nobody would ever pay 4 points for that card if it didn’t give you extra range. ****, most people wouldn’t even use it for zero points (why waste the Turbolaser slot on a straight up downgrade?).

Besides which, I think the card actually works. It should definitely have been worded differently (they could have just said, one way or another, “this card allows you to fire at long range”), but it works as-is.

I agree the intent is obvious. I also admit it seems like a small and insignificant detail. HFZ is not a card that is meta shifting. I don't see a situation of me ever using it. The problem I have is it changes how the attack rules work for this one card interpretation which can carry over to other cards. Any other ambiguous cards can now be at a player's interpretation.

11 hours ago, codytx2 said:

I agree the intent is obvious. I also admit it seems like a small and insignificant detail. HFZ is not a card that is meta shifting. I don't see a situation of me ever using it. The problem I have is it changes how the attack rules work for this one card interpretation which can carry over to other cards. Any other ambiguous cards can now be at a player's interpretation.

Ok, but in real terms: which other cards can be interpreted to work differently, if we rule that HFZ can shoot long range reds? What does that actually affect right now?

5 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Ok, but in real terms: which other cards can be interpreted to work differently, if we rule that HFZ can shoot long range reds? What does that actually affect right now?

The problem is that we shouldn't treat the rule as we think was intended. If so for example I could argue that to me Intel Officer is intended to be used after I make all my dice modification, even if it says "after you roll your attack pool".

A similar case arose with Jamming Fields where the intention seemed pretty clear to most that it was always on but as it was written some people argued (correctly at that time) that you could turn it on and off as there was nothing on the card telling you that it was mandatory. After many pages of debate we got an errata making it a "must", so problem solved, no more room for discussing RAW vs RAI.

I see your point, but having heard the arguments for why HFZ shouldn’t allow you to shoot long range reds, they’re kind of weak. What the game really needs, as I have said and will continue to say, is an official rule/errata team that is ON IT as soon as any confusion pops up. The card has been out a month now, and as far as we know, nobody from FFG is even aware that there is confusion about it. That they haven’t even said, “hey guys, we’re working on it!” is absurd.

16 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I see your point, but having heard the arguments for why HFZ shouldn’t allow you to shoot long range reds, they’re kind of weak. What the game really needs, as I have said and will continue to say, is an official rule/errata team that is ON IT as soon as any confusion pops up. The card has been out a month now, and as far as we know, nobody from FFG is even aware that there is confusion about it. That they haven’t even said, “hey guys, we’re working on it!” is absurd.

I can assure you they read the forums, but they cannot state anything to what you want. Because that requires a very long approval process that they don't have time/resources for.

I agree it would be great if they had a community team, but again, that is time, money, training, and resources that if they provide for this game, they must provide for ALL of their games. So they don't, because they don't have the time, money, training, and resources for it.